IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that leases for business operations do not exempt the premises from the jurisdiction of the Rent Act if the building itself is leased.

JUDGMENT :

Ritu Tagore, J.

This common order shall dispose of the captioned revision- petitions, with same issue to address. Further, parties to the petitions are same and counsel for the parties have agreed and consented to decide these petitions together.

2. The challenge in these revision petitions is to the orders dated 18.01.2024 (passed in these petitions on the same date), whereby learned Rent Controller, Khanna rejected the prayer of petitioners/tenants for dismissal of petitions being non-maintainable under the provisions of Punjab Rent Act, 1995.

3. In brief, facts of the case are that respondents/landlords filed petitions (Annexures P/1 in both the petitions) under Section 20(2)(a)(k)(o) read with Section 3(2) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (in short ‘the Rent Act’), seeking eviction of petitioners from the rented premises i.e. a marriage palace along with machinery, fittings, furniture etc. and parking area leased out vide lease deeds bearing No.3915 & 3916 dated 19.03.2018 on the grounds of arrears of rent, material additions and alterations and ceasing to occupy the rented premises.

4. The petitioners/tenants contested the petitions, seeking dismissal on the ground of their non-maintainability under the Rent Act. The petitioners raised specific averments that business of running a marriage palace was leased out to them by the respondents/landlords, as such Rent Petitions are not maintainable and learned Rent Controller has no jurisdiction in the matter. The respondents/landlords resisted the aforesaid averments. The learned Rent Controller upon appraisal of the records vis-à- vis the pleadings, passed the impugned orders dated 18.01.2024.

5. Being aggrieved with the findings, the petitioners/tenants filed thèse petitions.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that learned Rent Controller failed to appreciate the terms of lease deeds bearing No.3915 & 3916 dated 19.03.2018 (Annexure P/4), clearly reflecting the fact that business of running a marriage palace was leased out, and not the building. The building was handed over to the petitioners/tenants to run the business. Therefore, provisions of Rent Act are not applicable and learned Rent Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain petitions. To support his plea, learned counsel referred to the terms of lease deed bearing no 3916, particularly clause 14 and 15, which speaks of letting out business of running a marriage palace and not the building.

7. Addressing further in this regard, learned counsel submitted that Rent Act applies to the ‘premises’. The Act defines both “Non Residential Premises” and “Premises”. Learned counsel stated that under section 2(f) “non-residential premises” means premises being used solely for the purpose of business or trade with proviso that the residence in the premises only for the purpose of guarding, shall not deemed to convert a “non -residential premises” to a “residential premises”. The learned counsel also invited the attention of this Court to the definition of “Premises” contained in Section 2(g), which states that any building or part of a building which is or is intended to be let separately, for use a residence or for non residential use or for any other purpose and includes-(i) the garden ground and out-houses, if any, appertaining to such building or part of building but does not include the upper side of roof (Terrace); (ii) any fittings to such building or part of the building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof.

8. The learned counsel stated that pleadings of the petitioners, definition of the term ‘premises’ and ‘non- residential premises’ and terms of lease agreements leave no doubt that dominant purpose was to lease out running of business of a marriage palace and not the building. Learned counsel stated that in a case where business is let out, the building in which business is running, does not fall within the ambit of leasing of subject of rent agreement. In such a situation, the building becomes seconda